CSC poised to make double-bunking the norm, documents show

The Correctional Service of Canada is planning a dramatic shift in policy that could make double-bunking the norm and erases all references to maximum capacity in federal prisons, according to correspondence obtained by iPolitics.

In the wake of Conservative tough-on-crime laws and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ past comments about seeing “no problem” with double-bunking, a draft proposal of a CSC directive on accommodation “substantially alters previous policy,” wrote Ivan Zinger, executive director of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, in a letter to CSC’s senior deputy commissioner Anne Kelly on Sept. 20, 2012.

The draft commissioner’s directive on inmate accommodation, the policy that governs how Canada’s 15,000 or so federal prisoners are housed, removes several key principles “that were once considered fundamental to safe and humane custody,” Zinger wrote in the letter, obtained under Access to Information law.

In the new directive, the statement “single occupancy accommodation is the most desirable and correctionally (sic) appropriate method of housing offenders” would no longer be included.

The draft also removes a line that points to double-bunking as a short-term strategy, which states: “the current policy reflects CSC’s belief that double bunking is inappropriate as a permanent accommodation measure within the context of good corrections.”

“Double bunkable accommodation” is defined as one cell designed for one inmate occupied by two.

“These omissions are a significant departure from the previous policy; they have the effect of lowering the standard for inmate accommodation and are inconsistent with international human rights norms and standards,” including the single-cell occupancy rule of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which Canada endorsed in 1975, wrote Zinger.

“The omissions contribute to normalizing double-bunking rather than considering it as an exceptional measure or as an option of ‘last-resort.'”

Also missing from the revised directive is a section dealing with prison capacity.

The new version would omit the “Institutional and Operational Unit Capacity” section, Zinger wrote. The current directive outlines in detail the maximum number of inmates at both men and women’s institutions, in minimum, medium and maximum security prisons.

For example, for a multi-security male prison which includes maximum security offenders, the directive stipulates the institution shall not exceed 500 inmates, including a maximum of 100 in each unit and 25 on each range.

“It is unclear why the service would remove from its policy the rated capacity for each of its security levels consistent with effective corrections,” Zinger wrote.

“Evidence suggests that smaller institutions not only provide better correctional outcomes as they are able to offer higher quality and more individualized programming and services but also contribute to more effective dynamic security practices.”

In her response written Oct. 29, Kelly said the directive — along with other CSC policies — is being revised to reflect changes stemming from Conservative crime legislation such as Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which passed in March and provides new mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and sex crimes against minors, among others. It is also includes recommendations from a 2008 police review task force, and from information in policy, security, and case management bulletins.

She said “extensive editing” was done on the directive to “remove extraneous details, to improve clarity of the direction and to focus on staff responsibilities.”

“Your office raised the concern that key principles were removed from this CD. CSC has recently made a corporate decision to exclude principles from all CDs,” wrote Kelly.

“However, this action must not be interpreted as a change in direction as CSC recognizes that single occupancy accommodation is the most desirable and appropriate method of housing offenders, and is making every effort to reduce double-bunking, where possible.”

The new directive would also add a criterion that must be considered for double-bunking assessments: “for both offenders, the nature and gravity of their offence and the degree of responsibility of each offender.”

Zinger said the criterion is not clearly defined and is “potentially subject to arbitrary judgments.” There is no mention of rights; ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences; special needs groups; or mental health, he said.

The new policy plan also moves away from key recommendations made over the past few years by Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers, including increased oversight for double-bunking and prohibiting the practice of double-bunking inmates in segregation and in secure units at women’s prisons.

Sapers has recommended that double-bunking assignments be signed and approved by the warden and reviewed by regional authorities on a quarterly basis.

Kelly responds to concerns about inadequate monitoring and oversight, saying the revised directive will continue to require correctional officers complete the double-bunking assessment and that it be approved by a correctional manager.

“CSC believes that correctional managers are the most appropriate authority to provide oversight of this process,” she wrote.

She said CSC continually monitors double-bunking in the secure unit and in segregation through “various reporting methods.”

When double-bunking hits 20 per cent of a region’s capacity, the CSC commissioner must approve any increase. Kelly said the revised directive requires that when double-bunking is expected to exceed 20 per cent, regions must provide senior management with strategies to decrease the levels.

In response to the removal of specific institutional capacity section, Kelly said that inmate capacities are factored in facilities design. “Therefore, these are not included in the CD as they are not consistent with the overall new policy approach to CSC’s CDs.”

In the coming years, CSC is adding more than 2,700 accommodation “spaces” to men’s and women’s prison across the country.

“In conclusion, when it is necessary to accommodate two inmates in a cell, an assessment is made to ensure the safety of both inmates. The safety and security of staff and inmates are paramount in addressing inmate accommodation,” Kelly wrote.

In a November 9 letter from Sapers to Don Head, CSC commissioner, Sapers thanks Head for “our open and frank discussion” about the draft directive. Sapers suggests the commissioner has requested additional work on the directive and “will endeavour to address our concerns.”

According to the correctional investigator’s office, double-bunking has increased by more than 50 per cent in the last five years. In 2011, 13.5 per cent of the federal prison population was double-bunked.